Deluged with calls, state legislators take WiscNet off death row

Wisconsin's Internet system for its libraries and schools may be safe after …

The future is looking somewhat better for Wisconsin's state educational Internet system and the university division that supports it. By late Wednesday Wisconsin's state Assembly had come up with revised legislation for WiscNet that will allow it to receive continued funding from the University of Wisconsin's Division of Information Technology. The Assembly gave the provisions and state budget final approval very early this morning. WiscNet provides Internet for most of Wisconsin's public schools and libraries.

"We want to run this by our legal staff, but we believe this gives WiscNet enough flexibility to provide service and access to their current members," John Krogman, chief operating officer for the UW-Madison Division, told the Wisconsin State Journal.

No more calls, please

WiscNet's outlook was less rosy until the end of Wednesday's partisan battles over state finances. An Assembly Joint Finance Committee proposal released earlier this month would have forced WiscNet to separate itself from the UW-Madison Division as of July 1, 2012 and forgo $1.4 million in funds from the UW system in 2012-13. This would have compelled some schools to opt for Badgernet, a telecom-backed nonprofit heavily reliant on AT&T as its primary vendor, instead of the WiscNet system. Legislators expressed concern about the government getting into the Internet access business, even when that access appeared to save the state significant amounts of money.

The budget legislation would also have barred the UW system from receiving or dispersing any funds from the federal government's broadband stimulus program, forcing the university to return almost $40 million in funds. It would also have prevented the state's Board of Regents or UW System from providing telecommunications services "that are available from a private telecommunications carrier to the general public or to any other private entity" to anyone except the UW system itself.

And the prior deal would have prohibited the UW system from "becoming or remaining a member, shareholder, or partner" with any entity that "offers, resells, or provides telecommunications services to members of the general public." This would have barred UW from working with Internet2—the nonprofit bringing high speed Internet to schools and libraries across the country.

But by Monday, hundreds of Internet, community, and educational groups had deluged the state legislature with protests against the proposals. "Legislators said, 'please don't call us any more,'" University of Wisconsin economic development professor Andy Lewis told us.

On Wednesday WiscNet supporters demonstrated at the state capitol. "Lots of UW people in suits fighting for #wiscnet," tweeted UW network engineer Jeff Bartig. "I feel underdressed, but I don't own a suit."

Not committed prior to June 15

In the middle of Wednesday's noisy budget debate—replete with accusations of "class warfare" and warnings from the podium against hecklers—state Democrats introduced an amendment to delete all language in reference to WiscNet and the broadband grant. But that proposal went down 59 to 39.

What remains is Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 40. This compromise deletes the provision prohibiting WiscNet from staying with UW-Madison. It also restores the related funding of $1,400,000 for 2012-13. But the new language requires the Legislative Audit Bureau to do a financial and performance evaluation of the UW's "use of broadband services" and submit it to the legislature by January 1, 2013.

The latest package still prohibits UW from becoming a member of any entity that "provides telecommunications services to the general public." But the phrase "directly or indirectly" is deleted, and it stipulates that that provision won't take effect until July 1, 2013. And the Joint Committee on Finance "could act to further delay the effective date of those changes."

In addition, the university could remain part of such an entity if "(a) the entity does not offer, resell, or provide telecommunications services that it did not offer, resell, or provide on June 15, 2011... or (b) the entity is comprised entirely of universities and university-affiliated research facilities."

Taking the time

Finally, UW-Extension can accept broadband stimulus grant money if the funds "were not committed prior to June 15, 2011... unless approved by the Joint Committee on Finance." In other words, UW-Extension can keep the stimulus money it received prior to Wednesday.

The Wisconsin budget saga isn't over, but even with various strings attached, these provisions do seem considerably improved from the earlier proposals.

"We are taking time to carefully review this amendment and remain cautiously optimistic," WiscNet declared on its website at 8:20pm last night.

And at least one pro-WiscNet activist is willing to declare something akin to victory. "Never underestimate organized educators and librarians," his blog proclaims.

Good; that 1.4m will be some of the best spent money in the state. Why are they going after pennies being given out, and not some of the big ticket numbers?

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

I'd like to take a moment and comment on Data being utilized like a utility. As from the post above I am from Chattanooga TN and had to fight it out with Comcast to allow our city to build out a fiber network. It really has been a good thing. As I had stated earlier shortly after the city built out the network I subscribed to a 20/20 Mbps connection. EPB (our utility) found out a few months later that they had far more bandwidth than they bargained for and sometime later I received a letter in the mail that they were upgrading my connection to a 50/50Mbps at no charge and to have a nice day. There is no way a private corporation would do something like that and be on the level. Period. That was a year or so ago.

Last week I received another letter from our utility. As you might have seen in the news the better part of the south got clobbered with tornado last April and Chattanooga was no exception. I was without power myself for quite some time as the city was put back together.

Electricity is metered so I didn't think twice about my bill being lower due to not utilizing that particular resource. What surprised me, and pleasantly so, was the letter I received from EPB stateing that since our electricity was out, that meant our data connection (and TV by extension) could not have been utilized. They went ahead and prorated the bill to reflect the absence of data during that period and refunded the difference.

No games, no angles, no hidden charges, no caps that I'm aware of, no scams. Just honest municipal fiber ran as a utility, paid for not by taxes but bonds that accrue investors a bit of interest for the use of their money for the initial build out, for the citizens of this city.

While I don't know that "okay, we'll do what you want if you stop bugging us" is the best response, it is heartening to see that people still have the power to affect their governments. And while a compromise makes no one happy, its good to see that the legislature here is willing to hear that people value education and the importance of the Internet to it.

Thad Boyd wrote:

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

In the world of business and IT, we call this "low hanging fruit", meaning you're supposed to pick it first. The trouble is, of course, when the politicians start throwing around words like "non-discretionary." So we have to spend our money on these things? There's no choice? Great.

Yeah, I really didn't clarify that and just grouped them under 'telcos'. Sorry for any misunderstanding. The Comcast statement, while not relevant to the article in particular, is personal since they sued my city to block municipal fiber to the home and hence relevant to the general mindset of these corporations as illustrated in the article. Please see above.

Electricity is metered so I didn't think twice about my bill being lower due to not utilizing that particular resource. What surprised me, and pleasantly so, was the letter I received from EPB stateing that since our electricity was out, that meant our data connection (and TV by extension) could not have been utilized. They went ahead and prorated the bill to reflect the absence of data during that period and refunded the difference.

No games, no angles, no hidden charges, no caps that I'm aware of, no scams. Just honest municipal fiber ran as a utility, paid for not by taxes but bonds that accrue investors a bit of interest for the use of their money for the initial build out, for the citizens of this city.

That's pretty awesome of them. Personally, I think we just need more competition. Instead, we have FCC regulators taking jobs for the corporations they regulated and government-backed monopolies asking too much money for too little service.

Good; that 1.4m will be some of the best spent money in the state. Why are they going after pennies being given out, and not some of the big ticket numbers?

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

BANG on... also US almost ALWAYS runs a deficit(see war) which rarely is mentioned by the party driving it up(spending based on future income) until out of office attacking the new owners for continuing their practice of 'runaway' spending. Am talking Buchannan and old wars of course. Other than Clinton only pres to survive/ endure congress attempts to 'correct'.

Your math translates to our math as two... or one. To spend or not. Current efforts only matched three times in US past(very young place); prior to Civil War, prior to depression/WW1; prior to depression/WW2, many other time cycles come close but main economic driver broken by 70's legislation(since 'fixed'/repealed).

No longer pacnicked or scared as metamorphis nearly complete- we thank you for all the fish BUT we have viewed this dinner theatre before and want to leave...

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

Social Security is currently solvent. Projections say it won't be in a few years though. If the projections pan out, then we'll either have to cut it or raise FICA taxes to compensate. Otherwise, you're spot on. If we cut defense spending back to pre-9/11 levels, we would cut 1/3 of the deficit. Eliminating all of the so-called Bush tax cuts (congress really is to blame here) would eliminate another 1/4. Those two alone bring us back into a relatively sustainable deficit position and they can be accomplished relatively quickly. Medicare is going to take a long time to fix though. The more immediate concern is to slow or halt the growth in spending. That will then hopefully give the country a chance to catch up over time and reduce Medicare's % of GDP. The rest, as you say, is peanuts.

What's really funny is the fact that cutting funding for WiscNet would actually increase WI's deficit since BadgerNet is more expensive. This legislation was nothing more than a power grab by the local telcos to seize control of all internet access in the state.

Yeah, I really didn't clarify that and just grouped them under 'telcos'. Sorry for any misunderstanding. The Comcast statement, while not relevant to the article in particular, is personal since they sued my city to block municipal fiber to the home and hence relevant to the general mindset of these corporations as illustrated in the article. Please see above.

Nothing wrong with ragging on Comcrap. My bill for HD cable (most basic version of HD) and 15/5 (usually 20/2, so its not so bad there) broadband is $145. That includes a $5 fee for renting the modem and a $15 fee for renting the HD DVR, so really $125 (minus applicable taxes, of which I have no desire to calculate) for services. Kinda crap, in my opinion, when I hear about all of these up-and-coming fiber networks getting rolled out for far cheaper. Plus, now I hear they're offering integrated Skype and Facebook into their Xfinity service, which of course will cost more. I only hope that its an opt-in model, or else they've lost me as a (regrettably) consumer.

Good; that 1.4m will be some of the best spent money in the state. Why are they going after pennies being given out, and not some of the big ticket numbers?

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

I would add Medicaid to that list as well -- otherwise I agree 100% with you.

Electricity is metered so I didn't think twice about my bill being lower due to not utilizing that particular resource. What surprised me, and pleasantly so, was the letter I received from EPB stateing that since our electricity was out, that meant our data connection (and TV by extension) could not have been utilized. They went ahead and prorated the bill to reflect the absence of data during that period and refunded the difference.

No games, no angles, no hidden charges, no caps that I'm aware of, no scams. Just honest municipal fiber ran as a utility, paid for not by taxes but bonds that accrue investors a bit of interest for the use of their money for the initial build out, for the citizens of this city.

That's pretty awesome of them. Personally, I think we just need more competition. Instead, we have FCC regulators taking jobs for the corporations they regulated and government-backed monopolies asking too much money for too little service.

Or simple community owned- wait thats communism. No wonder the rush to make such community efforts illegal.

Shocking. Now you tell me that gambling also has been going on... that's no way to start a relationship.

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

Social Security is currently solvent. Projections say it won't be in a few years though. If the projections pan out, then we'll either have to cut it or raise FICA taxes to compensate. Otherwise, you're spot on. If we cut defense spending back to pre-9/11 levels, we would cut 1/3 of the deficit. Eliminating all of the so-called Bush tax cuts (congress really is to blame here) would eliminate another 1/4. Those two alone bring us back into a relatively sustainable deficit position and they can be accomplished relatively quickly. Medicare is going to take a long time to fix though. The more immediate concern is to slow or halt the growth in spending. That will then hopefully give the country a chance to catch up over time and reduce Medicare's % of GDP. The rest, as you say, is peanuts.

What's really funny is the fact that cutting funding for WiscNet would actually increase WI's deficit since BadgerNet is more expensive. This legislation was nothing more than a power grab by the local telcos to seize control of all internet access in the state.

Bill Maher(Real time) has good graphic- a plate full of meat(45per), mashed potatoes(45per), and a few vegs/greens(less than 10 percent). 100 percent of fight over the veggies(peanuts).

Anyone experiencing the US health system, vacation/retirement system, or god forbid 'justice' system realizes more than the internet broken.

Aging population and infrastructure will cause a need for additional care- but we cannot afford it. Like education gains and other 'infrastructure'- they must be cut back for future prosperity.

Huge cuts to the taxes taken in with cutbacks across all social spending(and defense gasp) will still leave an unmet budget debt and increasing deficit(debt and deficit two completely different thingys we love/hate to confuse). Do not worry - you will have larger distractions.

Only concerned as alcohol becoming unaffordable and that is our 'medicine' and calorie source.Plus will miss ARS... and the comradery... and the cutlery.

Making sense by being obtuse but now watching my weight. waiting on weight you may say- I wouldn't.

Facing the old American question: Sell my gun and eat today? Or keep gun and go eat the neighbors neighbors(hey I know 'my' neighbors) lunch. ANd then them. Tastes just like chicken!

I'm upset with the doublespeak that's going on in our state legislative core. The speeches all say that these bills will cut the WI deficit and increase jobs, but it's at a cost of services that promote the public good. The three big ones so far have been the collective bargaining rights bill, this Internet2 bill, and the "UW-Madison should be split from the UW system" bill. These all undermine our public university system's ability to perform research and educate students.

I'm happy to pay taxes in return for public services. That's the point of taxes. Of course I would like to pay less taxes, but if there's a legitimate payoff, I'm okay with it. Every time I see UW-Madison come out with some new white paper (usually related to biochem work), I smile because I know my taxes are going to good use.

I can't wait for recall elections. Sigh.

Full disclosure: I'm a Wisconsin resident, I tend to vote Democrat, and I have many friends and family who are teachers and are affected by the collective bargaining bill.

I'm upset with the doublespeak that's going on in our state legislative core. The speeches all say that these bills will cut the WI deficit and increase jobs, but it's at a cost of services that promote the public good. The three big ones so far have been the collective bargaining rights bill, this Internet2 bill, and the "UW-Madison should be split from the UW system" bill. These all undermine our public university system's ability to perform research and educate students.

I'm happy to pay taxes in return for public services. That's the point of taxes. Of course I would like to pay less taxes, but if there's a legitimate payoff, I'm okay with it. Every time I see UW-Madison come out with some new white paper (usually related to biochem work), I smile because I know my taxes are going to good use.

Good works Andrew. I have NEVER voted straight ticket BUT if allowed to vote in future will vote so in memory of... the American Dream.

I can't wait for recall elections. Sigh.

Full disclosure: I'm a Wisconsin resident, I tend to vote Democrat, and I have many friends and family who are teachers and are affected by the collective bargaining bill.

Yes Demos disorganized compared to Republican. Organized power ALWAYS concerns US.Hobsons choice. Prefer a divided house/senate/OPUS. Now willing to risk ALL demo's. As not rich enough monetarily and to rich ethically to be republican anymore. The whole religion god thingy getting in way of screwing humankind for profit being OUR soul(le) determinate.

Dang, those republicans try to destroy everything they get their hands into

Mother Nature at fault AGAIN. She's promised to add ethics and compassion to the new Americans- oops- republicans although they have not noticed any problem(you know you have a problem when none noticed. Like we are not crazy if some of us think we are... learned that when I had healthcare).

I'd like to know how much money was wasted by them jockeying around on this issue. Mistakes are free, even ones that are retracted before they blow stuff up. The legislature was paid to sit around, drum up an idea like this, someone brought them coffee, office space was paid for for them to sit in and mull the idea over in... What is the price tag for all this wasted time?

While I don't know that "okay, we'll do what you want if you stop bugging us" is the best response, it is heartening to see that people still have the power to affect their governments. And while a compromise makes no one happy, its good to see that the legislature here is willing to hear that people value education and the importance of the Internet to it.

Thad Boyd wrote:

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

In the world of business and IT, we call this "low hanging fruit", meaning you're supposed to pick it first. The trouble is, of course, when the politicians start throwing around words like "non-discretionary." So we have to spend our money on these things? There's no choice? Great.

Yes non-discretion funds means the money is supposed to be used ONLY for that. Why my old ex is alive- a kidney transplant after hers failed. Her fault of course for drinking the water on base. Medicaid lists only kidney disease as mandating coverage. Luckily the antirejection drugs are not. And are to be stopped now.

HOWEVER, Social security was also, but has been used to fill spending gaps for awhile now(all on 'paper' anyway).

I'd like to know how much money was wasted by them jockeying around on this issue. Mistakes are free, even ones that are retracted before they blow stuff up. The legislature was paid to sit around, drum up an idea like this, someone brought them coffee, office space was paid for for them to sit in and mull the idea over in... What is the price tag for all this wasted time?

not much as idea was developed without their help. A small fortune was spent by lawyers and ads and special interests... all to be passed on to stockholders-LOLOLOLOL- okay the consumer.

You pay, successful idea or not, either way. In fact the most cost effective legislation is that which is not enacted. And usually the most beneficial as well. Oh hell is here(pssst why the 'rapture' appeared to not work).

Give it a week; the Republicans will do something illegal/fraudulent to force through a provision that strips the Uni system of these funds and forces them to subscribe to a private-sector service for twice the cost.

Elections have consequences, and this time around the people of Wisconsin elected a legion of epic douchebags.

In the world of business and IT, we call this "low hanging fruit", meaning you're supposed to pick it first.

"Low hanging fruit" doesn't really mean what you're supposed to pick first, it means what it's EASY to pick. There's a pretty important difference. (If we're to extend the metaphor a bit, if the fruit in the high branches is riper, then it may be harder to get but the end result will be better.)

Arty50 wrote:

What's really funny is the fact that cutting funding for WiscNet would actually increase WI's deficit since BadgerNet is more expensive. This legislation was nothing more than a power grab by the local telcos to seize control of all internet access in the state.

Absolutely. These folks don't actually care about saving taxpayers money, they just want to give more money to big business. Again, it's ideologically driven: private industry is always good, government is always bad. Of course, those of us in the real world recognize that sometimes one solution is better, sometimes the other is better, and sometimes a mix of both is the way to go.

And let's not forget that private industry only works effectively when there is competition -- which is absolutely not the case with broadband Internet in the United States.

i'm glad to see people are still willing to give their representatives a ring to voice opinions on issues. I usually try to (heck...even if its not in my state), after all - a quick email or phone call can often have a much more profound effect than that vote you cast! (especially in numbers.... 1,000 phone calls is a heck of a way to get a senator's attention, especially if they're coming from the younger age demographic who never use phones!)

While I don't know that "okay, we'll do what you want if you stop bugging us" is the best response, it is heartening to see that people still have the power to affect their governments. And while a compromise makes no one happy, its good to see that the legislature here is willing to hear that people value education and the importance of the Internet to it.

While it's not the best response, it is still a response in the vein of what was desired. Which, for now, is "good enough."

Thad Boyd wrote:

Because it's about ideology and not practicality. The same thing is going on in every state legislature and at the federal level. (There are only four ways to make a dent in the federal deficit: raise taxes, cut social security, cut Medicare, or cut defense spending. That's simple arithmetic. Anyone talking about eliminating deficit spending through any other method is, as you say, going after pennies.)

In the world of business and IT, we call this "low hanging fruit", meaning you're supposed to pick it first. The trouble is, of course, when the politicians start throwing around words like "non-discretionary." So we have to spend our money on these things? There's no choice? Great.[/quote]

Not if that "low hanging fruit" amounts to 3% of what you're going after. Then it's just a waste of time, and just designed to anger or appease people.

Not if that "low hanging fruit" amounts to 3% of what you're going after. Then it's just a waste of time, and just designed to anger or appease people.

I just realized I was kind of unclear. My point was that the large items (war and old people, if we're being honest with our labels) are the obvious points where money could be saved, i.e. the low hanging fruit, being as how they are where the majority of money is being spent. But what we see is bickering over the smaller items, which clearly have tighter budgets anyway.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.